[ElProlactin]

You're asking the US to do what is un-American.

American culture is deeply individualistic. From a cultural perspective, a person who fails in their recovery from addiction is seen, ultimately, as being responsible for their failure. They'd typically be criticized for being weak and undisciplined, even if the fake kindness of American culture prevents most people from saying that out loud.

[jerf]

"You're asking the US to do what is un-American. American culture is deeply individualistic."

Americas have had no problem with blue laws historically [1], which are laws about what can be done on Sunday largely connected to religious observations, as well as laws on "vice" and entire vice police [2] organizations.

It is no contradiction of individualism, and arguably a strong expression of it, to ensure that anything that can diminish individualism or directly attacks it also needs to be regulated. Heavy drugs, gambling, loot boxes, there's a whole variety of things that humanity has learned the hard way have a tendency to enslave those who indulge in them, and legally banning or constraining those things is perfectly in line with a philosophy of legal empowerment of the individual.

We also have a loooot of ways that people having problems with addictions can reach out for help. There is some truth to the idea that we have moved in the direction of being less willing to force that help on people, and some criticisms to be made there, but then, there were historically reasons for that shift as well that need to be incorporated into any holistic opinion of the situation.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

[2]: https://thelegalguide.org/what-is-vice-police-what-is-their-...

[ElProlactin]

The laws you're pointing to are just the other side of the same coin.

The Protestant roots of the US are arguably one of the reasons American culture is so heavily focused on individual responsibility and the idea that people who are addicts are weak and undisciplined.

https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/07/history-addiction-arden...

[jerf]

I think you're just stretching because it ruined your point and you refuse to admit it. I can't think of a bigger disproof of your point that Americans just let people do whatever and experience the consequences then applying the full force of law to banning the various things that are known to just hurt people without bringing anybody any gain like the hard drugs or, at least until recently, gambling.

What more is America supposed to do to remove this individual freedom from people? There is no bigger stick than the law.

[ElProlactin]

I think you just don't get it.

Individualism doesn't require a society free from rules, with every person allowed to do whatever they want.

The Protestant and Calvinist roots of American culture emphasize individual moral agency and personal accountability. This makes it easy to view things like addiction as a personal moral failure or lack of discipline rather than a systemic or biological illness.

At the same time, these same Protestant and Calvinist roots supported a level of paternalism in the form of blue laws, temperance movements, vice squads, etc.

You are arguing that laws regulating "sin", which are intended to promote public virtue, are evidence that the US really isn't individualistic because they're (in principle) taking away your ability to do whatever you want, but what you're missing is that criminalization contributes to the widely-held belief among Americans that people who break those laws are weak, undisciplined people making bad choices.

Most Americans don't view "sin" laws as social welfare. They view them as moral boundaries, and when someone crosses them (say, into addiction), the default is to place the blame on the individual's own willpower. You chose to do drugs. You got addicted because you couldn't control yourself. You failed at recovery because you're undisciplined.

This is pervasive in the US and it even extends to issues like poverty. Three-quarters of Republicans and over half of independents believe that personal choices are a major reason people are poor.

https://thehill.com/business/economy/5495065-americans-perso...

Which reminds me of one of Kurt Vonnegut's most insightful observations about American culture:

> America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

> Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

[toast0]

NASCAR no longer pursues the Winston cup, because tobacco advertising is banned.

The Bud Bowl was discontinued becsause alcohol advertising is regulated.

World Poker Tour was sponsored by (poker site).net instead of .com because advertising a real money poker site was unacceptable. I haven't watched in a long time, I dunno what their ads are like now.

Restricting advertising is very American.

[ElProlactin]

> ...because tobacco advertising is banned.

Except that it isn't: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

And let's not talk about how the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement had the perverse effect of making states financially dependent on tobacco sales. The annual payouts fluctuate based on cigarette shipment volumes so states want tobacco sales to continue. If tobacco sales stop, the states stop getting checks.

Most of the revenue goes to general fund deficits, infrastructure development, etc., not tobacco prevention and healthcare. And a bunch of states even securitized their future settlement payout revenue so that they could get money immediately.

[toast0]

> Except that it isn't

Your link includes bans on tv, transit, billboards, sponsorships, tobacco branding on non-tobacco items, etc.

Yes, there are a few venues where tobacco advertising is still permitted, but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

[ElProlactin]

> ...but they can't sponsor a soccer team.

And? Tobacco companies spend more than $8 billion/year on marketing in the US. Advertising is not banned, and unless you think these billion-dollar companies (that states perversely depend on for revenue) are run by idiots, that money is producing ROI.

[toast0]

The topic is banning certain types of sponsors from soccer teams. Someone said it's unamerican, but tobacco is an example of a banned sponsor for soccer teams. Gambling could just as easily be banned from sponsoring sports.

[ElProlactin]

Did you even read the article?

> Despite the front-of-shirt prohibition, gambling brands are still permitted to maintain a visual presence in the Premier League through shirt sleeve sponsorships or training kit branding, as demonstrated by Betano's new deals.

[TitaRusell]

Nah the US went after prescription drugs pretty hard.

Even Americans can't fully deny they live in a society.

[bluGill]

The 18th amendment disagrees. While there is a large "your own fault" for things like this, there is also a large "you shouldn't be allowed to do some stupid things".

[antiterra]

While your assessment may be true, I don’t think the mere ratification of the amendment makes the argument. It’s much more complicated.

The passing of the 18th was done through a highly organized and motivated cross-party political bloc that would throw an election to punish anyone that did not align with the dry agenda. This stacked the representative government in their favor, even if it did not match actual sentiment in their state.

The repeal of the amendment however, was by vote and 73% of voters favored the repeal.

[bluGill]

By your numbers 27% did not. Already that is a significant minority. There are an unknown number in your 73% that support things like the amendment, but not that particular one.

Speaking as an American only a tiny number are really the hard core individualists that OP is trying to reduce is to. The majority have inclinations that way but their beliefs are much more complex and cannot be reduced that far.

[ElProlactin]

> Speaking as an American only a tiny number are really the hard core individualists that OP is trying to reduce is to.

I'm an American who has lived abroad for many years and married into a less individualistic/more collectivist culture.

It's very easy to see how individualistic the US is comparatively speaking when you get the opportunity to step outside it.

[ElProlactin]

Citing the 18th Amendment, which not only failed to stop the sale of alcoholic beverages but led to the creation of a massive black market, as a rebuttal to the fact that America is a highly individualistic culture in which people are largely considered responsible for their inability to regulate their own behavior, is very strange.

[bluGill]

The 18th amendment proves that were are not that individualistic. If we were we never would have passed it.

The 18th amendment didn't stop the sale of alcohol, but it greatly reduced those sales. It did lead to a black market, but it overall did succeed in the aims of the supporters even if it wasn't perfect. Of course the supporters were not as numerous as they thought they were and so it was rolled back.

[ElProlactin]

> The 18th amendment proves that were are not that individualistic.

And did the 13th Amendment prove that there was no racism in America? Does the 2nd Amendment prove that all Americans love guns?

The US is one of the most individualistic societies in the world. There is a significant amount of qualitative and quantitative research about this. Hofstede's cultural dimensions is probably the most popular "scoring" of this, but it's hardly the only reference.

There's a reason the idea of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" originated in the US. If you've spent any time living abroad, especially in more collectivist societies (like those in Asia), you'd know how farcical it is to hold up the 18th Amendment as proof the US is not individualistic.

[bluGill]

Most individualist yes. However it isn't perfect 100%

[ElProlactin]

So then you're arguing that "the US isn't that individualistic, as compared to a society that doesn't exist."

[brewdad]

The US is a highly individualist society in which groups of individuals love to tell those outside their group what they can and cannot do.

[ozgrakkurt]

Yeah like the time they banned alcohol

[lotsofpulp]

It was very American to restrict gambling, especially sports gambling, to very few physical locations until 2018.

The government of the state of New Jersey argued that the federal government should not be able to restrict states from allowing gambling, and the Supreme Court agreed, so now there are no limits since all the states compete with each other in a race to the bottom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_...

Even though this ruling would indicate that the federal government has no right to regulate things like cannabis consumption, 8 years later, the federal government still has the “right” to charge you with myriad felonies that should only be up to the states. So this is really all about money and power instead of principles.